The former transportation secretary recounted being kept away from his 4-year-old twins overnight after an anonymous report falsely accused him of posing a threat to them.
That night, the twins slept at their grandparents’ house. The authorities required them to sit alone for the interviews with the CPS workers, as is common during such investigations.
Being forced to “sit alone” with CPS staffers is pretty rough for a kid, and if CPS “requires” it without first requiring some damned evidence, that’s a form of child abuse.
If someone reports that kids are being abused, then the trained professionals in childcare and abuse investigations should absolutely not have to include the presumed abusers or enablers in their process.
The child is the priority and their discomfort is better than their abuse.
Imagine if CPS was called because someone said the kids were being raped and the children had to sit their alongside their rapist answering difficult upsetting questions unsure of everything other than their abuser is beside them.
If there’s no evidence beyond an anonymous tip, this is the wrong response. Make enough anonymous tips, and every kid in America could be required to sit for an interview, over and over.
Then you have a completrly different set of circumstances where false reports wildly out number real cases and that would need to be accounted for but process should be followed regardless.
So, did you miss the “without first requiring some damned evidence” line, or simply ignore it…?
So you would seek to gather evidence from the victim, while their abuser is in the room with athority over them?
First port of call is separating and investigating.
So you would seek to gather evidence from the victim, while their abuser is in the room with athority over them?
Nobody has said that except you.
So, you’re investigating Epstein allegations, and you think Epstein himself is in the room for every interview…?
I didnt say that, you cant follow like three two sentence comments. Thats on you.
Guess you didn’t appreciate the implication of what YOU were suggesting.
So you would seek to gather evidence from the victim, while their abuser is in the room with athority over them?
Holy goldfish memory, Batman. I’m quoting you.
And you need to consider that in context, I wasn’t saying that in every case that the abuser could be present. I was saying in the context of child abuse victims being interviewed alone, which I think is a valid process given otherwise their abuser could be in the room with them taking charge of their interview or statements.
Being able to quote something doesnt mean you csn comprehend it, or follow the thread in simple terms.
lol
